our discussions. >> one of the process points when i saw these revenue ideas in this deck, my assumption was that because of the understanding is that our advancing, the design contract to incorporate the rva stuff would result in additional expenditures and that would provide some contacts and remind us of other ideas out there. this budget discussion today was meant to be part of the discussion, the whole discussion will enter details with a full detail with slides and look at the expenditure side as well. am i correct that this is here for context and we

are not discussing the revenue and expenditure item today? >> bob, go ahead. >> you are correct, director, that these were provided for context as kind of additional component of the budget discussion that we weren't able to touch upon in prior meetings, but to provide the board with some background. in making the decision particularly as it relates to the rba, we are not committing to the budget increase at this time, but we thought it would be helpful for the directors to have some context of the types of revenue and potential amounts of revenue that we were planning to pursue to augment the current budget. >> right. it's helpful and we are not authorizing additional

expenditures. we are just laying that out. whenever the time comes when we are going to consider revising the budget on the revenue and expenditure side, we need to look at this in more detail.o that >> that's correct, director. >> back to the security discussion, i guess i want to just maybe clarify a few points in my mind and maybe make a couple suggestions. first with regard to standard such as fema, as well as the intelligence community, for a project such as this, it's also been my experience that the folks in dhs who establish these standards are not the people who build buildings, they don't generally fund the construction of buildings and in many cases have set

standards that render construction of building such a federal essential pass facilities in areas that are unbuildable. i think it's good and fine to start with fema standards, that it doesn't necessarily mean it's a realistic standard. i think it was previously, i'm sure this wasn't the intent but to clarify for the sake of the public of an implication that geography is not a factor in threat assessment. i don't think that's consistent with the current and best thinking in terms of rva's and risk assessment. i'm assuming it was a risk assessment. we don't want to build buildings that are going to create a

disproportional impact or collapse. i'm sure it's now and at the end of the process. it's almost a suggestion that up to this point we have been moving on path of designing that is going to move to progressively collapse. i want to state that for the sake of the public. >> that is not the case. we have prevented a collapse methodology from day one. >> we are all harping on this a little bit. i think the director or chairperson kim has mentioned, we are looking at cost, additional cost which added to whatever the current cost were might be approaching something like 10 percent of the cost of the building. it's a significant amount and nobody is questioning the level of expertise and the world class credentials. it continues to be a matter of understand of how

to dial that protection to the right level especially in light of director lloyd's comments that there is at some point exponential growth cost versus the benefit that you get. so, along those lines, one question is to what extent, if we were to not at the design phase but at the construction phase stage advance to what sense would we get a degree to secure safety act designation or otherwise buy down the liability, are they securing these things that we would be spending $60 million plus on? >> let me respond to one of your questions and i will answer this question. when fred

is given direction, fred clark, to incorporate the design guidance criteria that is embedded by everyone, he's taken to pencil to paper and looking at these numbers hard. the instruction he has from us is estimates to see if we can further refine them and bring them down. on the issue of the documents that are put together by dhs and fema and from a what i understand, the documents that are put together were at least post 9-1-1 and people who do build major structures, they are not put together by lay people. so, with respect to the geography, i can't speak to that because that's not my level of expertise. i have to

depend on all the experts t warriors reason and 49ers stadium are going through a very extensive security system. they don't need to bring it out to the public like we do, but they are, like oklahoma and kansas city, they are. with respect to the safety act designation, the way it works, director, is once we have the design guidance criteria and approved by the board of directors, the next step is we then meet with them again in more detail, we put together and application, there is an extensive application you fill out and denny's will be helping out with that and it's submitted. we are going to submit volumes and volumes of material and they will come in

and make their first determination. they told me on first read it's the best candidate and they will get the certification and designation. in terms of liability, with the question of who is responsible if something happens to the station and after we have implemented? >> no. it was more of a design liability question. >> everybody is liable out there. you want to speak to that, bob? let me have him speak to that so we are a hundred percent clear. >> thank you, director reiskin, i'm guilty of perhaps of not explaining first the geographic relevance. when we looked at along with urs, the population of san francisco which is around 880,000, the way they

address the assessment if the population. threats don't know the physical boundary. an aggressor looks at the effect on a region, not necessarily the contract boundaries of the center. so you are probably the 4th or 5th largest metropolitan area in the united states. the icon structures and some of the places in san francisco, if i didn't clearly explain that, i apologize. secondly, the approval for the project is -- new. it's almost certification by an individual group for the evaluation based on the extent of investigation the client makes on their own behalf. they are willing to help those that are willing to help themselves. we don't have a very very

specific checklist. if you provide this extent of mitigation, this extent of explosive and protection, i wish they had a checklist but they don't. they depend on the end user developer. following fema, 452 guidelines which are their bible and hiring world class professionals where they look at the other federal buildings such as court houses where they impose the infrastructure protection documents and they evaluate subjectively and uniquely each project from the suit ability of these standards. i have worked on a great number of federal buildings and i can appreciate the interest of the board of directors from wanting

to know the design is reasonable. the safety act is by federal partners grant to us because they are the agency granting to you the opportunity to have reduced liability. so, although in fact we think that in many cases these federal standards are important for protective design measures with certification and designation, we are working with their bible. can i guarantee you a vital part of my anatomy that they can grant this? no one in this room or from the federal level can. the investments that you are making are extraordinarily what other clients have made. we are comfortable at this particular time should you grant the

application for the implementation of these is that you have an extraordinarily good opportunity to receive those designations. more than that, i can't tell you. okay? >> so, with regard to the action that we are taking today, which i'm ready to support, i noticed that the, i don't believe the staff report or resolution had any mention of the cost of the additional design services that we are directing the design team to undertake. so does that mean that whatever additional cost that within existing authorization that they have within their contract? >> you mean the cost for them to incorporate the design guidance criteria is that included in our current budget? >> and the change of the glaze ing. >> i believe it was the december or january board

meeting we brought to you a modification to the appellee contract and that match the contract budget in anticipation of several changes. so this would fit under that contraction authorization. >> okay. thank you. i guess what i would recommend, we consider along with the approval of this is that we ask the staff to evaluate, we ask the staff and design team to evaluate the possibility of designing these additions maybe not the awe ning system building, some the package and

we incorporate the value engineering process into design that way when bids come back we know the exact cost of each and maybe we have gotten from the bidder's idea ways to reduce cost without significantly reducing the benefit and then the staff and the board will be maybe in a better position to be able to make decisions about how to go forward when it goes to construction. >> just to clarify we have already accepted all the alternates in the budgets to bring cost down and we are doing your suggestion which is asking to come up with better ideas to bring the cost further down, but i think it's important for bob to speak to some of these items are not going in as alternates like

the awe ning. >> i was keeping the awe ning out of this. from the previous discussion, security was one of the larger components of the $64 million. there may be some other elements that could be bid as alternates. it would be my suggestion to evaluate to the extent that we can do so. >> we've already had a conversation with the architect about some of the components being add alternates. particularly looking at some of the door hardware, some of the density of videos is surveillance cameras of being scaleable. and other things within the perimeter protection there is some surveillance that is a component of the cost of that. of a large component of

the cost on the perimeter protection is the ratings of the individual ball ardz from the building while our current orientation is to move the ball ardz, we would have a means of calculating the cost impact there very directly from -- because we have the same types of ball ardz as type of the bids is the quantity of each bid so we can calculate that but at this time we were

envisioning not a bit alternate but to move the diameter out. we can potentially package that as an alternate if so directed. >> my suggestion is the action before us today is really just to prove this direction or this guidance for our architects. i think we are getting ready to pass that item. my suggestion is that we add a resolve clause or add to the resolve clause what director reiskin has suggested and we can make that amendment with a roll call or with a vote. i don't know if you feel comfortable rephrased that again we can add that to the resolution.

>> again, it's not directing staff. i don't think the board at this point should be in a point to directing staff what should be components or not, just to explore the elements of rb a or other elements as well that could be packaged as options that will give us more flexibility down the road. >> can we add that in the resolve? >> it would read resolve that pga staff would explore with architects and team what rva items can be packaged as alternates? >> or other items. >> does that work? okay. all right. so that will read. >> so we will take that amendment, can we take that without objection? we'll take

that amendment and we do have an action before us. do we have a motion to thaek take this action. >> so moved. >> you do have two members that would like to address this issue. >> i apologize, please come up for a public comment on this item. >> item no. 7. >> chairwoman kim and members of the board, my name is mike eleven. i'm a lifelong resident of san francisco. back when i was younger i commuted for two years and was well aware of the short coming even back then . when i learned of the plans, i was very excited. when i saw

the rendering, i could not believe how great it looked. director harper said it right, it looks either real with that glass awe ning. when i looked at the proposed change to a metal awe ning i was stunned and disappointed. i can't analyze all the details that is your responsibility to analyze and come to a decision. i have to trust that you will make the right decision, but this is so disappointing and if it in fact is a question of about 17-and-a-half million dollars, they might have over simplified it, what i get is 17-and-a-half million dollars would cover of cost of keeping the glass awe ning with all of it's aesthetic

advantage and i work where safety and security is a no. 1 priority. if 17-and-a-half million dollars would cover that, isn't there someway to have this money available and keep the original design which the architect proposed because they thought it was the best way the build this terminal. i appreciate the discussion about the metal skin and sound as pleasing as the glass, but for me it doesn't cut it. if there was a fund, a private donation, i would contribute to it. we are already at 8 and 3/4 tax, i wouldn't be disappointed if it was raised. i was hoping it

would we the be iconic structure that we saw in the original plans. the terrorist have won. security can be addressed. if the glass awe ning can be retained. let me point out about 15 years ago there were different proposals for the bay bridge which is opening later this year. and because certain politicians wanted a signature you are tower, that cost more. we are just talking about 17-and-a-half million. i think it's appropriate. >> thank you. i'm not used to the bell in this room. the first bell is to indicate that you have -- 10 seconds. okay. this is an indicator that you are coming

up your near time when the final bell comes please finish your sentence. >> our next speaker? >> thank you. good morning, thank you for the opportunity. the first thing i would like to say, as you are going to hear next month we have more than to get the done. i they we should offer an alternate solution. this not only restricts -- it can be corrosive if it gets into contact with other metals especially with sea spray. also thin aluminum can become

flammable when exposed to heat and it will result in an explosion. the better alternative is a 21st century roofing material to cover large areas such as school playgrounds while allowing multiple lights. if anyone would blow it up, it's like a balloon. it looks like glass. the advantage it has is that it's a hundred times lighter than glass. so assuming right now you have a hundred -- tons

of glass, that would substantially reduce the cost of the packet. this is one of the many reasons why etfe was chosen for the center which would be the future home of the center in anaheim. last, but not least, they have access to expertise to michael stein who designed a 100 thousand square foot of the olympic stadium. last week they asked to make recommendations. this is not on the website. i have not seen it. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm jim patrick with patrick

and company. there have been a lot of discussions on this board, but i think the board needs to make policies to encourage buildings to happen around their area. i'm right around their area. to my knowledge there is no policies in place to incur this tax increase. i'm against the aluminum awe ning. we have a building near by. the pigeons love it and the dirt loves it. it will buildup and you just can't go in with a rag and wipe those out every 3 or 4 months. it's really impossible. to clean it, we water spray down and it's a big mess. i believe, no. 1. no. 2, the pigeons love it. they will find their way in

and there is a lot of areas. big problems with pigeons. so i think we really need to rethink this. no. 3, i like the visibility and the idea of being able to see action and reducing 20 percent. you won't be as visible and being able to see it and as the dirt builds up in these circles, they are getting smaller and smaller and the visibility will get less and less. i don't think it's a good idea. i think mr. clark has some great ideas, but i don't think this is a good one and i think we should reject this idea and keep the glass. thank you. >> thank you, are there any other members who would like to speak on the this item? seeing none comment is closed on this item. we have an amended resolution.

are there any comments from the board on this item? >> would it be helpful to have mr. clark to speak on these issues. on the maintain ability, i think there were some comments that might speak to that. >> can you please address those questions? >> absolutely. fred clark. let me talk about etfe because it was also raised at the last presentation. we looked very hard at e tfe. it's a wonderful material, a plastic material. if you remember the swim cube at the beijing olympics, that was etfe, the soccer stadium in munich, very well publicized

building. it's a great material. the issue is that in our experience it does not age very well. it tends to get dull and tends to get rather used quickly. so it was a material we discarded but we did look at it at some length. the issue of birds and maintenance, of course is an issue with glass as well. we have an extensive program by use of certain materials and the structure itself to ward off birds. that part of the wall though frankly is still being looked at and the aluminum scheme is still being looked at. we have to report to you at some detail. aluminum is not wrong, it does tend to pit and corrode if the surface is not treated adequately at the